1

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP PAPERS ON THE SUBJECT :

REMAND WORK IN GENERAL AND COMPLAINTS OF
POLICE ATROCITIES BY ARRESTED ACCUSED AND STEPS
TO BE TAKEN BY MAGISTRATE.

01. The dictionary meaning of “Remand” is to send back into

custody. Here, we send back the accused into the custody of police or that
of the magistrate for collecting evidence and completion of
investigation. The purpose of remand is to facilitate completion of
investigation.
02. Section 41 of Cr. P. C., empowers the police officer to arrest a
person without order of Magistrate and even without warrant if the
situation stated in the section is made out. Arrest of a person is an
encroachment over his liberty guaranteed by fundamental rights and it
also adversely affects his reputation and status. Hence, it is expected
that the police officer exercise the powers cautiously.

03. If a person is arrested without warrant, the police officer has to

complete the investigation within 24 hours and till the, he can keep the accused
with him. He has no power to detain the person arrested exceeding that period
without authorization by nearest Magistrate. This is the mandate
prescribed by section 57 of Cr. P. Code.

04. Here the provisions of section 167 of Cr. P. C., which

authorizes a Magistrate to direct further detention of accused comes into play.

05. Before a Magistrate authorizes detention under section 167,

Cr. P. C., he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in
accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person
arrested are satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not
satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound
not to authorize his further detention and release the accused.
 2

06. In the case of Ram Doss..V/s... State of Tamilnadu, 1993 Cr.L.J.

2147 Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that while granting remand U/sec.
167 Cr.P.C. a Magistrate has to see : (i) The grounds why detention beyond 24
hours is sought for. (ii) If there is a report disclosing cognizable offence. (iii) If
case has been registered for investigation. But a Magistrate cannot
question why such case has been entertained in absence of material
therefor.

7. Section167 (2) of the Code gives power to the Magistrate to detain the
accused after satisfying himself that there are grounds for detaining the
accused. The magistrate can pass an order of detention for a maximum period
of 15 days in police custody and thereafter in magisterial custody. It
is clear that the satisfaction of the magistrate as regards existence of adequate
grounds for detention is necessary. This cannot depend upon the application
which is presented to him but the material regarding investigation which is
produced before him which is contained in the case diary. Therefore, the
application presented on behalf of the investigation officer must
mention the name of the officer who is presenting the same and the said
application is required to be considered by the Magistrate as contemplated by
Section 167 of the Code. (Shrawan Waman Nade vs. State of Maharashtra.
1994 (1) MAH.L.J. 220)

08 Taking into consideration these aspects Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303, has
held that ordinarily arrest is the part of the process of investigation
intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in
detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and
aftermath of the crime and the connection of other person, if any,
in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may
provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary
 3
to curtail his freedom in order to enable investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witness and persons connected with the victim of the
crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality.
For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process
of investigation.

09. In the case of Manubhail Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujrat and

others (2013) 1 SCC 314, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that,
remand is a fundamental judicial function of the Magistrate. While
performing this judicial function, Magistrate has to satisfy himself that
there are reasonable grounds therefor and that materials placed before
him justify remand of accused. While remanding accused it is obligatory on
part of Magistrate to apply his mind to facts and not to pass remand order
automatically or in a mechanical manner.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has in the case of ARNESH
KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2014) 8 SCC 273, held
as follows:
“ Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers
do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not
authorize detention casually and mechanically ”.

In that case the Honourable Supreme court has issued following directions in
respect of all offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years; whether with
or without fine.
1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to
automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C
is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest
under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41,
Cr.P.C;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing
specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
 4
3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and
furnish the reasons and material which necessitated the arrest,
while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for
further detention;
4. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused
shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in
terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the
Magistrate will authorise detention;
5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the
Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the
case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C be
served on the accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from
rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental
action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of
court to be instituted before High Court having territorial
jurisdiction;
8. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the
Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental
action by the appropriate High Court.

11. A careful reading of S. 167(1), Cr. P. C. would show that an

investigating officer can ask for remand only when there are grounds for
believing that the accusation or information is well founded and it
appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period
 5
of 24 hours fixed by S. 57. Therefore, it follows that a remand by a
Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient grounds must exist
for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of remand..

12. Article 22(1) of the Constitution gives a person arrested a

twofold protection, viz. (1) that an arrested person shall not be
detained in custody without being told the grounds of such an arrest and (2)
that he shall be entitled to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of
his choice. Article 22(2) gives yet another protection stating that every person
who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest
Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey
from the place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate and that no such person shall
be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority
of a Magistrate. Section 50, Cr. P. C. which is a corollary to Article 22,
Clause (1) and (5) of the Constitution of Indian, enacts, that the persons
arrested should be informed of the ground of arrest, and of right to bail.
Section 57 Cr. P.C. which is also in consonance with Article 22(2) of the
Constitution of India, provides that no police officer shall detain, in
custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period that
under all circumstances is reasonable and such period shall not in the absence
of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167 exceed 24 hours exclusive
of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's
Court. Section 167 Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure when investigation
cannot be completed in 24 hours. It is not necessary for the purpose of
this case to elaborately go into the history behind the importance and
object of the constitutional provisions as well as the other provisions of the
general law.

13. A careful reading of S. 167(1), Cr.P.C. would show that an

investigating officer can ask for remand only when there are grounds for
believing that the accusation or information is well founded and it
 6
appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period
of 24 hours fixed by S. 57. Therefore, it follows that a remand by a
Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient grounds must exist
for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of remand. That is the
reason why it is required that a copy of the entries in the diary should be
forwarded to the Magistrate along with the arrested persons. This is the second
stage in remanding the accused persons.

14. If the prima facie accusation or information is not well founded

and sufficient grounds do not exist for the Magistrate to exercise his
power of remand, in such cases, remand of accused can be refused. A
fortiori, a remand by a Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient
grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of
remand. “Judicial remands should not be passed in a routine manner”.

15. Sec. 167 of the code provides for the detention of the accused
during pendency of investigation. Sec. 209 provides for detention of the
accused during pendency of Committal proceedings and Sec. 309(2) provides
for detention of the accused during pendency of trial or inquiry. While dealing
with the remand work the Magistrates are required to adhere the following
principles and guidelines.
1. The period of 24 hours commences from the time the person is
arrested by the police.
2. The arrest of person is a condition precedent for taking the
arrested person in judicial custody.
3. Fifteen days’ time for remand is to be counted from the date of
production of the said person before the court.
4. A person arrested without warrant must be immediately informed
the grounds of his arrest and in case of every arrest it must be
immediately be made known to the arrested person that he/she is
entitled to apply for bail.
 7
5. The arrested person is entitled to get legal aid on his arrest from
the nearest Legal Aid Committee, and such committee has to
provide legal assistance to the arrested person as per rules.
6. A person held in judicial custody can if circumstances justify be
transferred to police custody or magistrate custody or vice versa
within a period of 15 days referred to in Sec. 167(2) of the code.
7. Accused should not be ordinarily remanded to police custody
unless there is reason to believe that some material and valuable
information is likely to be obtained which cannot be obtained
expect by remanding the accused to police custody.
8. For verifying the statement made by the accused police custody
may not be necessary. In such cases ordinarily Magistrate should
remand the accused to Magistrate custody.
9. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that the presence of the
accused with police is not necessary for investigation he may
remand the accused to magisterial custody.
10. While remanding the accused to police custody the Magistrate has
to take note that (1) such custody should not be granted for more
than 15 days on the whole, (2) reasons for remanding the accused
to police custody should be mentioned in the order and (3) copy of
the order and reasons should be sent to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
11. Before remanding the accused to police custody the Magistrate
should first get satisfied that the accusations against the accused
are well founded, and for that purpose he should not only go
through the case diary and the statements of the witnesses, he
should scrutinize the record and decided as to whether the
prescribed formalities are followed and complied.
12. In case of the female accused, they should not kept in the
police lock up in which male suspects are detained. Female
accused should be kept in separate lock ups and guarded by
 8
female constables. Interrogation of female accused should be
carried out only in presence of female police officers.

16. After expiry of the 15 days period if further police custody remand
is granted, it would be violation of Sec. 167 of the Code of the Criminal
Procedure. In the case of C.B.I. V/s Anupam Kumar (2000) 9 Supreme
Court Cases page 266, the Honorable Apex Court has observed that Sec. 167
(2) provides that at a time accused can be remanded for 15 days. If further
detention of accused is necessary on satisfaction of the Magistrate further
detention in Magisterial custody can be allowed. Magistrate may authorize
detention of the accused beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that
adequate grounds exist. However there is further limitation for detention of
accused persons in such custody. Accused can be so detained for the period of
90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years. The
detention can be authorized for 60 days where the investigation relates to any
other offense. As per Sec. 167 (2) if the investigation in respect of the offenses
punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years is not completed within 60 days
or if the investigation in respect of offense punishable with imprisonment for a
period 10 years or more is not completed within 90 days, then the accused shall
be released on bail if he is ready and willing to furnish bail and if he furnishes
bail. For counting the said period of 60/90 days, the first date of remand is to
be considered, and not the date of the arrest, as held in the case of Changat
Satyanarayanam and ors V/s State of Andhra Pradesh (1986 ) 3 SCC 141.

17. In the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya V/s. State of Mahatrahstra

AIR 2001 SC 1010, the Honourable Apex court has held that where a charge
sheet is not filed within requisite period of 60 days the accused is entitled to
indefeasible right to be released on bail.
 9
18. In the case of D.K.Basu V/s State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC
610, the Honurable Apex court has issued the following 11 procedural
guidelines in the case of arrest, detention and interrogation of any person.
1} The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear
identification and name tags with their designation. The particulars
of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the
arrestee must be recorded in a register.
2} That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall
prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo
shall be attested by at least one witness. Who may be either a
member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of
the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be
counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and
date of arrest.
3} A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in
custody in a police station or interrogation center or other lock-up,
shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person
known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as
soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained
at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of
arrest is himself such a friend or relative of the arrestee.
4} The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must
be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the
arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid
Organization in the District and police station of the area
concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after
the arrest.
5} The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have
someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put
under arrest or is detained.
 10
6} An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the
name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of
the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in
whose custody the arrestee is.
7} The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the
time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on
his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspector Memo”
must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting
the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
8} The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a
trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a
doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by the Director,
Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory Director,
Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and
Districts as well.
9} Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred
to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.
10} The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
11} A police control room should be provided at all Districts and State
headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place
of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer
causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the
police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice
board.

19. While dealing with remand work we are required to deal with various
types of remand under the special acts. The details of which are as under.
 11
Transit remand :
20. A transit remand is not specifically defined under the Code.
However, when a warrant of arrest is executed outside the district in which it
was issued, and the court which issued the warrant is not within 30 km of the
place of arrest, then the person arrested may be produced before Executive
Magistrate, District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police who
shall direct his removal in custody to such court. In case of bailable offence
such Magistrate/ DSP/ CP shall release the accused on bail, and if the offence is
non-bailable it shall be lawful for Chief Judicial Magistrate or Session Judge to
release accused on bail, by invoking powers under Section 81 proviso II,
subject to the provision of Section 437 of Cr. P In this regard judgment
of Hon'ble High Court in Criminal C. Application No.402/2013, in Malti
Ravindra Shah V/s. State of Maharashtra may be referred regarding
powers of granting transit remand.

Remand under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985

21. The N. D. P . S. Act, as it stands after the amendment of 2001 (w.

e. f. 2/10/2001), provides for constitution of Special Court, for trying all
offences under the Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of
more than three years. Provisions of remand under the General 22 Of 27 Code
are modified by virtue of Section 36A (1) (b) of this Act, which provides that a
person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under the Act
be forwarded to a Magistrate under sub Section 2 or sub Section 2A of Section
167 of the Code. Whereupon, Magistrate may authorize the detention of such
person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding 15 days and 7
days in a whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate. In case of
offences triable by the Special Court, the proviso to the said sub section
provides that when such person forwarded to him; or upon or at any time
before the expiry of the period of detention authorized by him, the
Magistrate considers the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall
 12
order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction.
When such person is so forwarded to the Special Court, the Special Court
exercises all the powers of remand conferred on Magistrate under Section 167
of the Code.

22. Thus, under N. D. P. S. Act, for the offences triable by the

Special Court, first remand is done by the Magistrate and
subsequent orders of remand are passed by the Special Court. The offences for
small quantity of contraband are punishable with rigorous imprisonment
up to six months or a fine of Rs. 10,000/ or both, which offences are triable
by the Magistrate and hence Magistrate exercises powers of remand under
Section 167 and 309 (2) of the Code. The period of remand of 90 days under
Section 167 of the Code is modified with a period of 180 days, only for the
offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences
involving commercial quantity.

Remand under The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 :

23. The controversy as to whether a Special Court designated

under Section 14 of this Act could take cognizance of an offence, was set at
rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gangula Ashok Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 740. It has been held
that Special Court designated under Section 14 of the Act is
essentially a Sessions Court and hence it cannot take cognizance of the
offences under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being
committed to it by a Magistrate. The reason assigned is that neither in the Code
nor in the Act, is there any provision to the effect that Special Court would take
cognizance of the offence as a Court of original jurisdiction.
 13
Remand under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 :
24. Sub Section 1 of Section 5 of this Act makes provision
for taking cognizance of the offences under the Act by Special Judge without
the accused being committed to him for trial. Hence, the Special
Judge exercises powers of remand under Section 167 of the Code.

Remand under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime

Act, 1999 :

25. Powers of remand under MCOCA vest with Special

Judge appointed under Section 5 (3) of the Act. The power of Special Judge
may not be conferred on any Judge unless he has been appointed as a Special
or Additional Special Judge by the State Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court.

Remand under The Electricity Act, 2003 :

26. After the amendment done by State of Maharashtra in
the year 2005, for the State of Maharashtra and after amendment of Central in
the year 2007 ( w. e. f. 15/06/2007), for whole of India, the Court can take
cognizance of offences under the Act on police report filed under
Section 173 of the Code. The provision is made for Constitution of Special
Courts in Section 153 of the Act for the purposes of providing speedy trial of
offences referred to in sections 135 to 140 and section 150. The second proviso
to Section 151 provides that special court constituted under section
153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused
being committed to it for trial. Thus, for the aforesaid offences the Special
Court can exercise powers of remand under Section 167 of the Code.
 14
Remand under The Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 :

27. Power of remand under this Act vest with Special

Judge appointed under Section 28 of the Act. It is imperative for
all police officers to produce the accused for remand before the special Court
and not before the court of the magistrate.
COMPLAINT OF ILL-TREATMENT AND PROCEDURE TO BE
FOLLOWED

01. Custodial violence is worst form of human rights violation which

has become very serious and alarming problem. “Torture” denotes intense
suffering physical, mental and psychological, aimed at forcing someone to do
or say something against his or her will. It means an attempt to break down
detainee under severe physical pain and extreme psychological pressure. The
suspect is detained in some isolated place beyond reach of family, friends and
legal assistance. Interrogators control everything, even life. The torture is not
called torture for obvious reasons, by those who practice it. It goes under the
names of "sustained interrogation" 'questioning' or "examining". Whatever the
name be, brutalisation is the result always. In the words of Hon"ble Krishna
Iyer : Justice V. R. "We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of
police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens, that
their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore
human rights to death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic,
torturesome poignancy (when) violent violations is perpetrated by the police
arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizens and not to commit
gruesome offenses against them. The state, at the highest administrative and
political levels is expected to organize special strategy to prevent and punish
brutality by the police methodology. Otherwise, the credibility and the rule of
law in our republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will deteriorate . There is
urgency of stamping out the vice of third degree from the investigative
armoury of the police".
 15

02. Although safeguards are put in place to protect the rights of

accused on his arrest, there is no specific provision in the code as to what
procedure is to be followed if any accused alleges ill-treatment at the hands of
police on his arrest or during his custody. Criminal Manual has provided a
mechanism for the same.
Procedure in complaint of ill-treatment :
03. It is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate, whenever a person
arrested is produced before him by police or investigation agency for remand to
inquire to every arrestee about ill-treatment by police. If any complaint of ill-
treatment is made by accused or prisoner procedure to be followed by
Magistrate is given in para no.3 of Chapter 1 of Criminal Manual.

04. If any accused or prisoner makes allegation of ill-treatment to the

Magistrate then Magistrate shall examine the prisoner's body if the prisoner
consents. Magistrate has to see personally if there are any marks of injuries as
alleged, and shall place on record the reason of his examination.

05. If the prisoner refuses to permit Magistrate for such examination, he

shall record such refusal and reasons thereof. If the Magistrate finds substance
in allegation of ill treatment he shall first record the complaint of prisoner, and
forward the prisoner for medical examination to Medical Officer or Registered
Medical Practitioner as provided in section 54 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, and shall make report to the Hon'ble Sessions Judge. If
magistrate has no power to take make necessary inquiry himself, he should
forward the prisoner with the record to the Judicial Magistrate having
jurisdiction to investigation the case.

06. Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that

Magistrate shall at the request of arrested person direct the examination of the
body of such arrested persons by a registered Medical Practitioner in case of
 16
his allegation before him that such examination of his body will afford
evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence or which
will establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his
body.

07. If prisoner forwarded by Magistrate to Medical Officer or

Registered Medical Practitioner for examination, such Medical Officer shall
examine the prisoner and make report to that effect. In report, Medical
Practitioner has to mention the nature of injuries, age of injuries, marks of
injuries and shall forward such report to the Judicial Magistrate concerned, and
also to the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, with his opinion and also state whether the
prisoner makes any allegations in regard to the injuries against police or others
responsible for his arrest or custody, or state how else the prisoner explain
them.

08. Thereafter Honorable Sessions Judge after satisfaction on receipt

of report from Magistrate and also report from Medical Officer should arrange
for an immediate magisterial investigation into the complaint through such
Judicial Magistrate as he may deem most convenient.

09. Result of such investigation must be communicated as early as

possible to the court seized of substantive case. If it considers necessary, the
court may summon the Medical Officer or the registered Medical practitioner to
give evidence in the case.

10. A complaint in respect of ill-treatment was made by the accused

before the Magistrate. The Magistrate on making preliminary inquiry had
submitted positive report to the Hon'ble Sessions Court regarding ill-treatment.
The Hon'ble Sessions Court had directed the said Magistrate to luanch the
prosecution as per law. The said Magistrate filed complaint against the
accused before another Magistrate. The another Magistrate took cognizance
 17
and issued process against the accused. The said accused preferred Writ
Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay praying to squash the
complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint filed by the
Magistrate. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in the said case Yadavrao
Chavan .Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Application
No.1494/2013 has observed that – there was no specific prohibition or bar in
law to take cognizance of the alleged offence on the basis of the complaint
lodged by the Magistrate. There was also no legal bar or prohibition on the
lodging of the complaint by the Magistrate and the question would only be of
propriety and regularity. In any case, the Magistrate has clearly acted in good
faith thinking himself to be acting in his official capacity and as per the
directions given by the Sessions Judge to whom he was suboridinate. The
institution of the proceeding against the applicant/accused is not shown to be
barred under the provisions of any law. It is not that the complaint does not
disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, or that it is not supported by
the material collected by the Magistrate/respondent no.2.

Other relevant provisions in respect of ill-treatment in the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 :-

11. Section 53 - According to Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure

Code the police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector can request the
registered Medical Practitioner to medically examine an arrested person under
certain circumstance, and if he is unwilling to undergo it, the Section empowers
the Medical Practitioner and his assistants to use such force has reasonably
necessary making the medical examination.

12. Section 53 A :- Examination of person accused of rape by

Medical Practitioner -
Amendment Act 2005 provide for a detailed medical examination of a
person accused of an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape by a
registered Medical Practitioner employed in a Hospital run by the Government
 18
or by a local authority and in the absence of such practitioner within the radius
of 16 km from the place where the offence has been committed by any other
Medical registered practitioner.

13. Section 54 - Examination of arrested person by Medical Officer-

Amendment Act 2008 Clause 8 substitutes Section 54 relating to
Officer. Examination of the arrested person by Medical The amendment makes
it obligatory on the part of the states to have the arrested person examined by a
medical Officer in the service of central or state governments and in case of
Medical Officer is not available by a registered Medical Practitioner soon after
the arrest is made. It also provides that where the arrested person is female the
examination of the body shall be made only by or under the supervision of
female Medical Officer, in case female Medical Officer is not available by
female registered practitioner. Such Medical Officer shall prepare the record of
such examination, mentioning therein any injuries or marks of violence upon
the person arrested, and approximate time when such injuries or marks may
have been inflicted.

14. Section 55 A - Health and Safety of a arrested Person

Amendment Act 2008 Clause 9 inserts a new Section 55 A so as to
make it obligatory on the part of person having the custody of accused to take
reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.

15. Section 176 - Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death -

Amendment Act, 2005, Section 176 is being amended to provide
that in the case of death or disappearance of a person, or rape of a woman while
in the custody of the police, there shall be a mandatory judicial inquiry and in
case of death, examination of the dead body shall be conducted within twenty-
four hours of death.
 19
CONCLUSION:
16. The Magistrate must record the complaint of ill-treatment made
by accused. Police are duty bound to conduct the medical examination of
accused prior to arrest. The Magistrate must if consented by the accused
examine the person of the accused and note the injuries if any. The Magistrate
must then send the accused for medical examination to a registered medical
practitioner. On receipt of the report from the medical officer, Magistrate can
compare both the reports and reach to conclusion. If substance is found in the
allegation of the accused he is to be taken in Magisterial custody. The
complaint lodged by the accused must be treated as a private complaint and it
must be sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance. The
Magistrate is also duty bound to send the report (giving information about the
allegation and not to send the entire complaint) to Hon'ble Sessions Court. If
the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance has not proceeded in
accordance with Chapter XV, the Session Court may direct the Magistrate
accordingly.
LIST OF CASE LAWS
1. Ram Doss ..v/s... State of Tamilnadu, 1993 Cr.L.J. 2147
2. Shrawan Waman Nade vs. State of Maharashtra. 1994 (1)
MAH.L.J. 220

3. Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303,

4. Manubhail Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujrat and others (2013) 1
SCC 314,

5. ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

(2014) 8 SCC 273,

6. C.B.I. V/s Anupam Kumar (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases

page 266,

7. Changat Satyanarayanam and ors V/s State of Andhra Pradesh

(1986 ) 3 SCC 141.

8. Uday Mohanlal Acharya V/s. State of Mahatrahstra AIR 2001 SC

1010
 20
9. D.K.Basu V/s State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610,
10. Criminal .C. Application No. 402/2013, in Malti Ravindra
Shah V/s. State of Maharashtra

11. Gangula Ashok Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 Supreme
Court 740.

12. Ashok Yadavrao Chavhan .Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
Criminal Application No.1494 of 2013.